jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

I personally think using the terms youngsters and kids to describe a teenagers is bad policy if it's done to be deliberately misleading or being used to minimize impact of a story. The law recognizes age when they decide to try teens as adults in certain situations, and certainly recognizes the difference between a child and a teen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

You mean like how folks were calling suburban white teens who use heroin (you know, criminals) were called kids and children?

Yeah, definitely something to consider.

Above post is 23:37.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

Sorry, but you'll never hear me making up excuses for any crime. Rich white boy "chemical imbalance"? F*** that. I don't care what hue you are. Violence is violence. Crime is crime. We need to stop pretending it isn't. -23:30

Sorry. My above post is for 23:37. My apologies.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

Sorry, but you'll never hear me making up excuses for any crime. Rich white boy "chemical imbalance"? F*** that. I don't care what hue you are. Violence is violence. Crime is crime. We need to stop pretending it isn't. -23:30

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

I thought we agreed that we shouldn't believe everything we read in the press.

I also thought we agreed that some individuals engaged in criminal activity on Monday. That we know, don't we? I don't know if the police dept. has disclosed their ages. Do you?

I'm a believer in "It takes a village", but we need to step up here and call this what it is: crime. Not a few "kids" having a fun day at the Zoo. We can't hope to fix a problem if we don't think it was much of a problem.

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

You mean like how folks were calling suburban white teens who use heroin (you know, criminals) were called kids and children?

Yeah, definitely something to consider.

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?

I would want to get the most accurate and complete information about this event possible. Then, do an "lessons learned" exercise to understand what could have been done differently to have prevented the shooting. Depending on what those conclusions are, I would suggest new or modified procedures or other changes in how the event is conducted.

Maybe people who feel that way could get a better sense of the event by actually attending the event themselves. Sometimes, first-hand experience is the best experience.

How old are these "kids" you refer to, PP?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?

I would want to get the most accurate and complete information about this event possible. Then, do an "lessons learned" exercise to understand what could have been done differently to have prevented the shooting. Depending on what those conclusions are, I would suggest new or modified procedures or other changes in how the event is conducted.

I don't believe we'll ever have any guarantee of preventing a shooting, stabbing or other violence. Based on what we know, what measures do you believe might have reduced the likelihood of crime? How to plan ahead for next year? Do you think police should have made any arrests when they witnessed violence and had reports of stealing inside the Zoo? Apparently, the police simply removed the trouble from inside the Zoo, to outside the Zoo. It's my understanding that police are supposed to arrest individuals actively engaged in criminal activity.

I think one thing we can agree on is that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the press. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you can. The Post reported that a group of kids kicked out of the zoo on the 14th said on their Facebook pages that they planned to return. Frankly, I find this hard to believe on several levels. But, again, for the sake of argument... To find the kids' Facebook pages, the zoo had to know their names. If these same kids were caught stealing and fighting a week later, it would have been appropriate (to put it mildly) to arrest them. However, if the situation was such that an attempt to arrest them might endanger zoo visitors, perhaps explosion would make sense. But, given that the kids' names much be knows (at least some of them), those kids should have been rounded up by now.

Another factor at play is multiple police forces. The zoo may have its own police force, or at a minimum rely on the Park Police. Once outside the gate, the MPDC takes over. It's possible that whoever is responsible for the zoo wanted to toss the kids out and make them someone else's problem. But, then everyone was quickly overtaken by events.

As far as I know, there is no immediate threat to the zoo or its vicinity. This won't become an issue again for another year. If that's the case, we have the luxury of time to gather information and make informed decisions. But, were I forced to decide today what to do, I'd agree with the poster above who suggested cameras and continued police presence. I would add to that increased use of intelligence. If potential troublemakers are posting on Facebook, the police better be keeping a close eye on those pages and their Twitter feeds.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?

I would want to get the most accurate and complete information about this event possible. Then, do an "lessons learned" exercise to understand what could have been done differently to have prevented the shooting. Depending on what those conclusions are, I would suggest new or modified procedures or other changes in how the event is conducted.

I don't believe we'll ever have any guarantee of preventing a shooting, stabbing or other violence. Based on what we know, what measures do you believe might have reduced the likelihood of crime? How to plan ahead for next year? Do you think police should have made any arrests when they witnessed violence and had reports of stealing inside the Zoo? Apparently, the police simply removed the trouble from inside the Zoo, to outside the Zoo. It's my understanding that police are supposed to arrest individuals actively engaged in criminal activity.

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?

I would want to get the most accurate and complete information about this event possible. Then, do an "lessons learned" exercise to understand what could have been done differently to have prevented the shooting. Depending on what those conclusions are, I would suggest new or modified procedures or other changes in how the event is conducted.

Np here. Prosecution of those who fought this year, and tons of surveillance cameras next year, along with continued police presence and an announcement beforehand about the surveillance cameras at the zoo and surrounding blocks.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article:

"Zoo officials had expelled about three dozen rowdy youths minutes before the shooting Monday, and D.C. police said a crowd of about 100 young men and women had converged near the front gate about that time. Within minutes, two shots were fired, injuring a 16-year-old and his 18-year-old friend."

Looks like our poster(s) who have been saying the shooting was related to attendance at the zoo was (were) correct....

How can you say that? The article also says this, "Authorities also don’t know whether the shooter was among those expelled or if the person had even been in the zoo."

This is not something that should be treated like a debate topic in which each side tries to score points selectively choosing facts. That is simply divisive and not helpful to finding a solution.

Are you really this dense? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Someone gets shot after 36 rowdy youts (correct spelling) and about 100 young men and women converge near the front gate of the Zoo and it just happens to be this random straggler at the Zoo for no other reason than to just randomly shoot someone. Wow, just amazing. What were the odds?

You should join the police force. You would have this case solved by now. The two guys who were shot were apparently never inside the zoo. Why would you assume that the person who shot them had been?

Whether or not the victims or the shooter had been IN the zoo is irrelevant. If they were in the area because of the festivities at the Zoo, the shooting IS thereby RELATED to the event at the zoo. IT IS PART OF THE WHOLE PICTURE. You can not just separate out bits and pieces and call it unrelated.

It matters because PP is claiming the shooter was among those kicked out. If they had not been in the zoo, they couldn't have been kicked out. Also, metal detectors and the like would not have helped.

Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?